third_party (ex-lib_3p) now ready for review.

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at
Wed Jul 23 23:47:06 MDT 2014

On Wed, 2014-07-23 at 01:22 -0700, Ira Cooper wrote:
> The functionality of the patch as far as a "user" is concerned is much the
> same.  But it has been refactored underneath so it has less code
> duplication, and it is prepared for the day when we want to change the name
> of the third_party directory.  (While I haven't plumbed it into configure,
> one could.)
> The patchset itself has been broken out into smaller more understandable
> patches.
> If you have comments on how to make it better, I'm all ears.
> The main thing, you will find me strongly opposed to changing is the last
> commit, removing the libraries, hopefully reading the popt commit will help
> you understand why, along with all the discussions along the way.
> I encourage you to see this as a "final draft".  (Or RC1.)  I do think it
> is much more ready to go than when I started, thank you for the review
> comments!  They truly did prove useful.
> Trees for review:
> Samba:
> Third party git tree:

I would still prefer we had a build (such as the samba-libs autobuild
target, and perhaps a distcheck run) that removed the 3rd party
directory, but left the stuff in git.  The tarballs would not contain
the 3rd party stuff, via a DIST_BLACKLIST rule.

That way we find use of the 3rd party stuff (because we don't build),
have cleaner tarballs, but don't pull stuff out of git right now.  It
meanst we, consultants and admins can manually create a 'fat' tarball if
we need, while we test user (non) reaction. 

Then take the next steps if we still have a pressing case, but those
should be building unmodified third-party tarballs, not having our
wscript based build split across two different git repositories, as that
just makes testing and other build system changes harder. 


Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett
Authentication Developer, Samba Team
Samba Developer, Catalyst IT

More information about the samba-technical mailing list